“The Right Not to Be Offended”: The Secularized Discourse of the Anti-Gay Christian Movement Stephen Hunt University of the West of England Abstract The subject of gay and lesbian rights is one of the most vexed and challenging issues facing contemporary Christianity. In line with other elements of the non-heterosexual liberation movement, lesbian and gay Christians in the United Kingdom (UK) have sought to organize and mobilize. Their aim is to extend and protect what they regard as fundamental human and civil rights. A countervailing Christian movement, articulated through various factions, has arisen to confront the non-heterosexual lobby. This paper explores the strategy adopted by conservative groupings seeking to forcefully reply to their highly vociferous opponents who have appealed to both church and secular agencies with the language of “rights”. Such a response increasingly involves a discernible shift from a discourse of “sin” and biblical prohibition as the conservatives engage in their own secular rhetoric related to “rights”, thus arguably indicating wider processes of “internal secularization” within the Christian churches. The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement In the UK, as in many Western societies, lesbian and gay Christian groups have proliferated with various levels of success in advancing their civil rights. As the core representative body, the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) was established in 1976 in order to provide a common forum for a number of “cause” groups from different denominations and to advance their interests in both the churches and secular world. To this end the LGCM’s mission statement begins by outlining its aim: To encourage fellowship, friendship, and support among individual lesbian and gay Christians through prayer, study and action, wherever possible in local groups, and especially to support those lesbian and gay Christians subjected to discrimination.1 Further mission statement aims include encouraging the broad Christian Church to re-examine its understanding of human sexuality and to work for the wider acceptance of lesbian and gay relationships; to witness the Christian faith within the gay community at large; and to establish international links with secular, as well as other gay and lesbian Christian agencies. Gill (1989: 2-102) provides the definitive account of the LGCM’s brief but troublesome history in the UK up until the late 1980s, tracing the movement through various stages: the early years in which the movement found its footing and attempted to establish an identity; a period of relative growth and progress (1977-84); the years 1 LGCM web-site, http:www.//lgcm.org.uk/html/aims.htm http (accessed March 23, 2008). “The Right Not to Be Offended” 1985-88 entailing the creation of an inclusive movement in terms of males and females, by denomination, and by gaining support for the LGCM’s challenge of institutionalized homophobia more stridently at a time when many denominations appeared to increasingly accept the legitimacy of the “gay debate”, if not the cause of the LGCM.2 With its greater visible during the 1980s, the LGCM was subject to a backlash from many churches. Perhaps most notably, evidence of a reactionary stance was abundantly clear in the Church of England Synod in 1987 when a motion to ostracize gay clergy was passed, albeit with amendments which allowed bishops to obstain from a comprehensive purge. During these years members of the LGCM found their cause harder to promote in some denominations than others. This was particularly so for Roman Catholic gays and those from the more conservative Protestant constituencies who staunchly defended their traditional biblical stance against homosexuality. Other churches found the subject uncomfortable to engage with and, as in the case of the Methodists and Anglican Church, major divisions of opinion ensued. Against this background, diverse conservative Christian grouping began to mobilize in opposition to the LGCM. Evidence of this in the Anglican Church was clear when opponents sought but failed to have banned the thanksgiving service in Southwark Cathedral in 1996 to celebrate the achievements of the LGCM’s first twenty years. Persecution continued despite notable advances. In 1998, the 750 bishops of the world-wide Anglican Communion, meeting in Canterbury for their ten- yearly Lambeth conference, made their harshest condemnation of homosexuality to date, with the passing of a resolution rejecting homosexual practices as “incompatible with Scripture” and that “abstinence is right for those who are not called for marriage”.3 Strategies of Opposition Conservatives of contrasting hues, both Catholics and Protestants, have adopted various strategies in opposing the LGCM’s cause. Although disagreeing among themselves on many issues, the controversy of homosexuality appears to be one of those to which the great majority of conservatives Christians are united in opposition. They have conventionally focused on the significance of a small number of biblical passages related to homosexuality which are deemed as constituting a moral absolute binding on the Church today. On such grounds the great number of denominations in the UK have also taken their stance, issuing policy statements, if less aggressively, regarding homosexuality but little in respect of lesbianism and far less on the subjects of bi-sexual and transgendered sexuality. Typically, however, many mainstream churches have modified the once prevailing view that condemned both homogenital expression and the homosexual condition/orientation as sinful and prohibited by God. Gay orientation is more acceptable, homogenital behaviour is not. This more liberal orientation is not a position universally endorsed by most conservative evangelical constituencies. 2 One significant development in the late 1980s was the establishment by the LGCM of the Institute for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality. Its primary aim was to facilitate education and discussion of all aspects of human sexuality within the broad Christian community. 3 Human Sexuality, Resolution I.10 (b). 23 Essays from the AASR Conference, 2008 The emphasis on biblical interpretation has meant that the “gay debate” continues at a theological level. Even before the establishment of the LGCM, those who sought to extend gay rights within the churches were locked within a largely barren theological debate with conservative evangelical Protestants and to a lesser extent traditional Catholics. Theologically speaking, gay Christians are largely liberal in orientation.4 Many have embraced a “higher criticism” and sought to re-interpret the key scriptural texts, bringing a contextual understanding of the homophobia of biblical times and criticizing the conservatives for picking and choosing the sins they censure. There have been a number of strategies taken by anti-gay rights Christian groups that supplement the biblical basis of their position. The first may be termed “the numbers game”. Conservative Christian organizations are keen to provide evidence that those with a gay orientation are a much smaller minority than their opponents suggest, thus rendering them even more a deviant sexual constituency and subsequently devaluing their claims to public acceptance. In 2008 a conservative “cause” group, The Christian Institute, published an article on its web-site5 quoting a Government survey which claimed that merely one in every 100 people in the UK describe themselves as homosexual.6 Less than one per cent said they were “bisexual”. The same article also pointed to the last National Census (2001) which appears to confirm there are fewer than 40,000 same-sex households (0.2 percent of the total) in England and Wales. There is a second strategy to be observed. Conservative Christian groups in the UK are skilled in presenting themselves as quasi-academic or research bodies that produce statistics suggesting that gay and lesbian people are not genetically predisposed towards their sexuality. The emphasis on scientific research is partially a response to the position taken by the LGCM which falls back on the evidence of the genetic basis of homosexuality such as that produced by the United States National Cancer Institute which indicates that 82 percent of gay men carry a marker, the Xq28, on the X chromosome. In the past the approach taken by Christian groups opposed to the gay rights movement has occasionally backfired. One alleged “fact” produced by some constituencies in the USA related to the so-called “gay lifespan” based on spurious research including the discredited work of Paul Cameron which was rejected by several academic bodies. Despite such set-backs, anti-gay rights groups seize every fragment of research evidence which support the conjecture that gay sexuality is in some way “nurtured”. The Christian Institute Magazine 7 in 2006 carried an article entitled “Gay Rights versus religious Rights” in which it stated: It is often said that homosexuals need civil rights because they are ‘born gay and can’t change it’. But this is against the evidence. One leading psychologist found that homosexuals (84%) could become heterosexual through psychotherapy.8 4 As part of this battle against the conservatives a significant initiative was the creation in 1979 of a separate Evangelical Fellowship within the LGCM. The group is specifically directed to work amongst many arch-enemies in the evangelical wing of the Church. 5‘Official poll reveals, gay numbers hype’, Christian Institute http://www.christian.org.uk/issues/2008/family/gaystats_28jan08.htm (accessed March 20, 2008). 6 In the survey of 4,000 people conducted by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) 94.4 per cent said they were heterosexual. 7 Christian Institute Magazine, April, 2006, 2. 8 Spitzer (2003). 24 “The Right Not to Be Offended” The blame for a gay orientation is consequently attributed to a fallen world where people are “abused” and models of homosexual behaviour are evident. In response to the gay gene theory, The Christian Institute resists any notion that gay men and women are “born that way”: Teenage boys can be confused about their sexual attractions.